posted at 10:05 am on July 21, 2011 by Ed Morrissey

Ohio’s concealed-carry law requires anyone stopped by police to immediately notify the officer if they are armed. Failure to do so is a first-class misdemeanor that can result in a six-month jail term and a thousand-dollar fine, as well as losing the license to carry. It’s usually not considered a death penalty offense, unless one gets pulled over in Beachwood Canton, Ohio, in a case highlighted today by Ohioans for Concealed Carry:

William pulled his car to the side of the road to let out two passengers, but only the female occupant managed to exit before the police pulled up and began screaming at all three parties. “Stay in that car, I’m not going to mess around,” screamed one of the officers at the two people attempting to exit the vehicle. The driver and concealed handgun licensee, William, remained seated in his vehicle when an officer entered the rear of the vehicle.

William stated, “I have a concealed carry, and…” when he was abruptly told to shut up. Dash camera video footage shows the driver turning his head, and his voice can be heard, but the words are inaudible. A few minutes passed while the officer continued to berate the two passengers. He proceeded to the driver’s side and tries to open the door but is delayed by a seat belt. William states “I have a conceal…” and the officer demands that he better tell the truth or else! This interruption causes William to “tell the truth” and his attempt to notify is interrupted. William exited the vehicle with his driver’s license in the same hand as his concealed handgun license. He held it up for the officer to see, and the officer said, “Why are you having that?” This gave William the opportunity to say, “I have a CCW, and…” The officer then said, “Do you have a gun?” William answered yes, causing the officer to grab it from William’s waist.

At this point, William was handcuffed and put into the police cruiser. The officer then started to berate William, stating: “I should blast you in the mouth right now … I’m close to caving in your head.” and “you’re just a stupid human being!”

The officer continued to berate the driver after arresting him and locking him in the back seat, offering such bon mots as “people like you don’t deserve to @#$%#$ move throughout public. Period!” Just after the discovery of the licensed firearm (and caught on tape), the same officer threatened to “put lumps” on a woman who had been outside of the car if he saw her in the area again. This seems to be an officer intent on delivering street justice more than law enforcement, and one with an anger management problem.

To be fair, even the concealed-carry community in Ohio acknowledges that they have a problem getting licensees to properly inform police during stops. Four years ago, Chad Baus wrote about the issue for the Buckeye Firearms Association, having heard about it from multiple law-enforcement sources. In Minnesota, it’s more of a practice than a requirement (there is no explicit legal language on the subject), but it’s a damned good idea. This past winter I was in a car accident outside of my house, and I made sure that the officer knew immediately of my status. He checked my license but otherwise treated it as no big deal — as it was in this instance. However, police officers are understandably sensitive about being aware of all firearms present at traffic stops, for very good reasons, most of which have to do with gravemarkers of their fellow officers who ended up getting surprised by them. It’s not for nothing that Ohio included that requirement.

In this case, though, a fair viewing of the videotape shows that the driver did attempt to notify the officers on more than one occasion before stepping out of the car, and tried to do so when the officer approached his window several minutes into the stop. He may not have done it very well, but it certainly doesn’t appear that the driver intended to keep the information from the police. The officer told him repeatedly to keep his mouth shut while they checked out the other two people involved in the stop. Threatening death and/or a beating to a man who tried repeatedly and finally succeeded in fulfilling his legal obligation to inform them is irrational and should be illegal. The driver faces failure-to-inform charges, for which OhioCCW is raising funds, but the court and the city should be taking a look into the actions of this officer during the entire stop.

Addendum: My late friend Joel Rosenberg literally wrote the book on carry licensing in Minnesota, The Carry Book: Minnesota Edition. Unfortunately Joel passed away before he could complete an edition that looked at the issue nationally, but even if you’re not in Minnesota, there is a ton of good advice for those who want to pursue carry licenses and handle firearms. My particular favorite chapter of the book is titled, “Cowardice 201: A PhD Seminar in Advanced Staying Out of Trouble,” in which Joel reveals that the true secret of karate is to run faster than everyone else. Self-defense starts with keeping out of situations where you will likely find yourself threatened. Joel’s book is a sobering read, literally and figuratively.

Update: The website said Beachwood, but the videotape does say Canton. Perhaps the driver was from Beachwood. I’ve corrected the first paragraph to match the video.

Update II: The Canton Police Department has posted a statement today to its Facebook page:

I want to assure our citizens that the behavior, as demonstrated in this video, is wholly unacceptable and in complete contradiction to the professional standards we demand of our officers. As such, appropriate steps were placed in motion as dictated by our standards, policies and contractual obligations. Those steps included: The officer immediately being relieved of all duty. The incident has been referred to the Internal Affairs Bureau for what will be a complete and thorough investigation. As bad as the video indicates our officer’s actions were, there is a due process procedure to follow. That process is designed in the best interest of both our employees and the citizens at large. That process will be followed in this case as in all others. Anyone shown to be in violation of our rules and regulations will be help appropriately responsible as dictated by all the facts. ~Chief Dean McKimm

One e-mailer called the Canton PD and spoke to a lieutenant, whom the e-mailer described as “embarrassed” by the story and “truly remorseful.” Some of the CPD’s commenters on the Facebook page object to the officer being essentially suspended with pay, but police get due process as well, and the union agreement with the city almost certainly has language governing that process. It’s good to see that the Canton PD is taking this seriously. Now, will the city drop the charges against the driver and restore his license status?

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Comments

A police interview begins the moment an officer of the law engages you in conversation. I don’t care if he pulls you over for speeding. Every police encounter is a police interview. Anything that you say can be used against you. ANYTHING.

MadisonConservative on July 21, 2011 at 2:25 PM

That’s right. That was in the video. I remember now. So what did the driver try to tell the cop outside of his lawfully required “I have a licensed concealed weapon?”

The problem with refusal to comply in a traffic stop is that most cities have ordinances against “interfering with the duties of a duly sworn law officer.” Even in my small and relatively conservative hometown, I know that citizens have been purposely harassed that way before. Tends to go along the line of, “You’re not going to let me search your car? Fine. I’ll take you to County and you can cool your heels for the night while I search your car anyway.” I can only imagine how bad it is in larger cities.

gryphon202 on July 21, 2011 at 2:23 PM

The problem is that such a threat is completely empty. If the officer does that, you will be suing the police department, and most likely winning a large settlement. Police are allowed to lie. They do it all the time. Police are trained to make you say what they want to hear. Refusing to incriminate yourself and refusing consent to searches are rights guaranteed by the Constitution, and no threat a cop can make can override them. If he’s going to arrest you, peaceably comply, then sue like mad.

I am of the opinion, that roughly half the people wearing the badge, and gun, should have a job, any job, besides law enforcement. I can’t get rid of the impression that most of the cops are people who were picked on in high school, and now they aren’t going to take anything from anyone ever again.

I’m getting a bit upset about this stuff. I always had the utmost respect for 99% of them. Not any more. At least my local ones continue to be decent folks who would rather help than harm, and be polite than overbearing when dealing with regular people.

So what did the driver try to tell the cop outside of his lawfully required “I have a licensed concealed weapon?”

gryphon202 on July 21, 2011 at 2:28 PM

He repeatedly tried to explain the situation, and how he was doing nothing wrong. In doing so, he was at greater risk for incriminating himself than if he said “I have nothing to say, and I don’t consent to any searches”. I’m not berating the guy. It’s a high-pressure situation, and I don’t fault anyone for doing what they need to in the circumstances. I’m trying to advise others who might find themselves facing the same dilemma.

I’m beginning to thing that unless you’re actually reporting a crime the only three things you should say to a police officer are “No, I’m not consenting to a search” and “Am, I being detained? Am I free to go?” If detained, “I want an attorney present”.

MadCon, I haven’t read all the comments so I may have missed if you said, but what is your background? Were you in law enforcement in some way, or have just dealt with them? You give really useful advice.

I’m beginning to thing that unless you’re actually reporting a crime the only three things you should say to a police officer are “No, I’m not consenting to a search” and “Am, I being detained? Am I free to go?” If detained, “I want an attorney present”.

rokemronnie on July 21, 2011 at 2:33 PM

In some states, you may need to give a name, address, or other info, but in general, yeah. If the officer is displaying a clearly friendly attitude, and you’ve done nothing wrong, then you should try to be as courteous as possible. Past that, you have no obligation to give them anything they could use to punish you.

While I understand the value/desire of remaining silent, one must realize that several states require someone to answer certain law enforcement officer questions if those questions are being asked on the basis of reasonable suspicion that a crime is being, has been, or will be, committed. I think one of these states makes it a crime to refuse to answer up to 5 specific questions if asked by law enforcement based on reasonable suspicion.

Additionally, a federal appeals court has upheld these laws despite 5th Amendment assertions. Keep in mind that the 5th Amendment does not provide someone the right to remain silent. The 5th Amendment merely provides someone the right to avoid being “compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself.” So, if it turns out that you had no “5th Amendment” purpose for not answering certain law enforcement officer questions then you may be convicted of a crime in those states.

In these situations and in such states, it’s probably best to declare, “I’m not refusing to answer your question officer, but I’m trying to determine if I have a 5th Amendment reason to avoid answering. The stress of this situation is making it difficult for me to determine.”

I have two candidates for carry, an HK USP Compact in 9mm and a Makarov in 9X18. Which would be the best choice? The HK is more powerful, but the Mak is slimmer. In our CCW permit system, you have to list the pistol you will be carrying, as well as qualify on it, so I have to decide soon.

pseudonominus on July 21, 2011 at 10:37 AM

Makarovs are heavy and have a bulky handle. They’re not a terrible option if you’re looking for something cheap, but far from the best. Good self defense ammo in 9mmx18 isn’t that easy to come by in most stores.

Ignore the “only a .45 will do” crowd. It won’t do you much good if left at home or in the car because you find it too heavy and bulky to comfortably carry.

There are a lot of lightweight, compact carry guns out there. Next one I get will probably be a Ruger LC9 or Kel Tec PF9. Both are lightweight, slim single stack 9mm and inexpensive- carry guns tend to get banged up a bit, so I’d rather have something inexpensive that works. I have a .45, but that mostly gets relegated to nightstand duty.

MadCon, I haven’t read all the comments so I may have missed if you said, but what is your background? Were you in law enforcement in some way, or have just dealt with them? You give really useful advice.

DrMagnolias on July 21, 2011 at 2:36 PM

Dealt with them, in both positive and negative situations. There are often a few at the pistol range I go to, and they’re good guys. If you open carry in most states and get into the open carry communities, you get your rights and proper conduct drilled into your head. Happily, encounters in Wisconsin seem to be getting better. This is a great site to read about both the good and bad.

In these situations and in such states, it’s probably best to declare, “I’m not refusing to answer your question officer, but I’m trying to determine if I have a 5th Amendment reason to avoid answering. The stress of this situation is making it difficult for me to determine.”

blink on July 21, 2011 at 2:37 PM

That’s actually a great response. In most cases, though, I think “I don’t feel comfortable answering any questions without a lawyer” is usually enough to chase most cops off. If they persist, that’s probably the best time to just remain silent.

As to the arbitrary law you mentioned earlier, I’d really like to know what state that is and how high it’s gone in the courts. Sounds like a minefield for citizens.

The questions that you must answer are “routine booking questions.” Laying aside the issue of whether such questions are specifically proscribed by the Bill of Rights, what just power allows the state to compel anyone to answer any question, specifically without due process?

That’s actually a great response. In most cases, though, I think “I don’t feel comfortable answering any questions without a lawyer” is usually enough to chase most cops off. If they persist, that’s probably the best time to just remain silent.

MadisonConservative on July 21, 2011 at 2:43 PM

Unfortunately, remaining silent in these specific situations in these specific cases IS a crime. Given the case law, I don’t think requests for a lawyer will help during prosecution.

I’d really like to know what state that is and how high it’s gone in the courts.

Understood. Let me look at my notes. Please make sure to check back later in case it takes me some time. It’s good to find a fellow student of this stuff.

Haven’t read the whole thread, but if I recall correctly, in Texas we got rid of our requirement to tell the police we have a permit when we’re pulled over. It was useless. Someone who plans to shoot a cop isn’t going to come clean on whether he’s carrying or not.

Laying aside the issue of whether such questions are specifically proscribed by the Bill of Rights, what just power allows the state to compel anyone to answer any question, specifically without due process?

vermin on July 21, 2011 at 2:48 PM

The government claims that there is sufficient public interest to trump individual rights by allowing a law enforcement officers to obtain certain information if the officers have reasonable suspicion. Unfortunately, this has been upheld. Let me see if I can find specifics.

The government claims that there is sufficient public interest to trump individual rights by allowing a law enforcement officers to obtain certain information if the officers have reasonable suspicion. Unfortunately, this has been upheld. Let me see if I can find specifics.

blink on July 21, 2011 at 2:54 PM

Amazing what they can justify with the words “public interest”. Six of the most nauseating words in the English language:

Pardon me for pointing out the advice given by pretty much all lawyers and civil rights organizations. How dare I point out that he might have done something better, right? How dare I attempt to give advice to others who might end up in the situation?

MadisonConservative on July 21, 2011 at 2:27 PM

Dude, the cop was irrational. He himself said that he should have capped him 10 times. Your suggestions aren’t bad. Heck, they even sound good to me but they might not have worked with this irrational cop.

However, police officers are understandably sensitive about being aware of all firearms present at traffic stops, for very good reasons, most of which have to do with gravemarkers of their fellow officers who ended up getting surprised by them.

The police department should refer this matter to the DA’s office for prosecution under Ohio Code 2909.23 – Making terroristic threat. Allowing such blatant crimes to go unpunished with mere internal review makes a mockery of our justice system, undermines confidence in the police force, making both them and ourselves less safe in the long run.

If you are looking for a reasonably priced gun to carry, the Keltec P380 or 9mm version is a nice choice. It is small. has a nice feel in your hand and a decent price. When I have had to declare it to the police–and I have several times as they used to frequent my former job either looking for people or responding to a crime– that would always say “that is sweet–that is a nice piece.”

Once I had a fairly new officer and she wanted me to unload it and put it in another room. I complied as she was new and nervous and there to help me.

Here law enforcement seems happy to have people carry. Glad to live where I do.

Yes, especially when the existence of “material public interest” is an arbitrary determination.

Here’s Kennedy’s majority opinion.

Obtaining a suspect’s name in the course of a Terry stop serves important government interests. Knowledge of identity may inform an officer that a suspect is wanted for another offense, or has a record of violence or mental disorder. On the other hand, knowing identity may help clear a suspect and allow the police to concentrate their efforts elsewhere.

Dude, the cop was irrational. He himself said that he should have capped him 10 times. Your suggestions aren’t bad. Heck, they even sound good to me but they might not have worked with this irrational cop.

shick on July 21, 2011 at 2:58 PM

It’s a good bet they would have had no effect. However, at the same time(and this is not a defense of the cop in any way), I’m thinking a lot of this cop’s talk was just that: talk. When you’ve got a gun and a badge, your threats can have a much bigger effect, and sadistic f**kers like this guy get off on that.

However, again…I’m just trying to give advice that can, hopefully, help people retaliate better against these fascist scumbags when it gets to the courtroom. Not faulting this guy at all for how he dealt with the situation. It’s scary. It was scary when I had 5 officers around my car with their hands on their weapons, threatening me and trying to get me to say something they could use to charge me with. Probably should have sued. I didn’t, because something like that could potentially threaten my job security in this far-left town. It can be hard to remember these things when some power-tripping pig is telling you he will ruin your life if you don’t do what he says.

I’ve started to notice that a certain amount of police officers (higher than average for other jobs) seem to have issues. It seems like some aren’t terribly smart. This may be due to the stress of the job, the intoxication of power, or the need to be highly aggressive etc… The profession also seems to attract type A people, and I wonder if the job affects their people skills even more. I am aware not all are like that, but it has made me more wary when I meet cops in social situations.

Madison Conservative, unfortunately, it was upheld by the Supreme Court. More to come.

blink on July 21, 2011 at 2:59 PM

I knew that most, if not all, states had established that you have to fork over ID if you have it, or identify yourself, during a Terry Stop. At the same time, you have the right to ask the LEO what their reasonable and articulable suspicion is. If they can’t explain it, a lawyer can typically attack that(though it’s one of those easily fudged details that a crooked cop can lie his way through).

I didn’t see listed in that case anything about the 5 question rule you mentioned earlier. Was that the same case?

Yep. The key is knowing when an LEO can claim RAS. It’s been a topic of much discussion with OCers, when it occurs in states where open carry is legal. Same reason most of the charges against Wisconsin OCers have been dropped.

It ain’t bravery. It’s just refusal to get down on your knees and beg the bully not to hurt you. Keep your hands in plain sight, make no sudden movements, and just breathe. If you’re in a car, make sure it’s turned off, including the radio. You don’t have to roll down the window all the way, just enough to pass an LEO your identification and any other papers you might need to provide(keeps him from snooping). Don’t be rude. Be polite, and quiet when he asks you gotcha questions. Ask how you can help. DO NOT LIE, EVER.

It sounds like a lot at first, but it’s really just a matter of keeping your cool. It will piss some cops off, no doubt. Others won’t care. You get your ticket, go on your way, and challenge it in court if you wish. The important thing is not to give up your rights. It’s not just for your safety and security…it’s your duty as an American citizen.

I didn’t see listed in that case anything about the 5 question rule you mentioned earlier. Was that the same case?

MadisonConservative on July 21, 2011 at 3:09 PM

I’m still looking for the state that allows an LOE to compel up to 5 questions. I’m having trouble finding it. Here’s Ohio’s statute which allows 3 (name, address, date of birth) and requires presentation of a person’s drivers license if it’s on them.

Also, Ohio allows an LOE to compel certain witnesses to answer the same questions even if they aren’t suspected to be involved with any crime.

(A) No person who is in a public place shall refuse to disclose the person’s name, address, or date of birth, when requested by a law enforcement officer who reasonably suspects either of the following:

(1) The person is committing, has committed, or is about to commit a criminal offense.

(2) The person witnessed any of the following:

(a) An offense of violence that would constitute a felony under the laws of this state;

(b) A felony offense that causes or results in, or creates a substantial risk of, serious physical harm to another person or to property;

(c) Any attempt or conspiracy to commit, or complicity in committing, any offense identified in division (A)(2)(a) or (b) of this section;

(d) Any conduct reasonably indicating that any offense identified in division (A)(2)(a) or (b) of this section or any attempt, conspiracy, or complicity described in division (A)(2)(c) of this section has been, is being, or is about to be committed.

Here’s a good one. Colorado allows 4 – name, address, id, and explanation of actions. I really don’t like the last one.

Stopping of suspect. (1) A peace officer may stop any person who he reasonably suspects is committing, has committed, or is about to commit a crime and may require him to give his name and address, identification if available, and an explanation of his actions.

Yep, those three are key(for some reason I always mix up date of birth with a phone number, then wonder how they can request the latter). Some people, understandably, don’t want to hand over their ID. Personally, I think it’s better simply to hand it over and confirm that it’s current. If they ask anything that is clearly stated on your ID, don’t answer. They’re trying to wear you down.

That point (1) in your quote also, I believe, falls under the RAS requirement, but, as I said, it’s easy for the cop to claim something.

You don’t have to roll down the window all the way, just enough to pass an LEO your identification and any other papers you might need to provide(keeps him from snooping).

MadisonConservative on July 21, 2011 at 3:22 PM

Heh … try that with the Louisiana State Police and see where that gets you. Every single officer has his own idea of where you need to be to receive a ticket. Not a single one I’ve met would accept a half-way rolled down window.

Some want you to stay in the vehicle. Some want you step outside. Some want to use the passenger window to receive your papers – some the drivers. One guy told me to get in the cruiser with him while he wrote my ticket.

Yeah – I’m a lead foot … and tell you what – if you drive through Livingston Parish you’d be too if you saw all the Playboy Bunnies that are working in the Sherrif’s Office where you have to pay the ticket. I’m not kidding you man – it’s like out of the Twilight Zone or something. There are, like 10 really beautiful (non-overweight) women in the state of Louisiana – and the Livingston Parish Sherrif employs every single one of them.

If you get a ticket … tell Robyn (with a “y” – that’s HOT) and Erica I said “Hi”

I have a problem with an American citizen being detained and touched by an agent of the government despite the fact that the citizen’s conduct is unambiguously legal. Obviously, I understad there is a difference between the two videos. That just means I’m madder about one than the other; I don’ think either is ok.

It ain’t bravery. It’s just refusal to get down on your knees and beg the bully not to hurt you.

MadisonConservative on July 21, 2011 at 3:22 PM

In all fairness to crazy shick, it is quite possible to have a run in with an insane police officer that convinces you that he will cause you some permanent harm unless you surrender your rights. In this situation, compliance might save your life.

It’s not just for your safety and security…it’s your duty as an American citizen.

I agree 100%. I know that an super-majority of LEOs are good and fair at executing their responsibilities, and I have no problem with Americans that offer up their cooperation to facilitate the execution of those responsibilities. But I also think it’s the duty of many Americans to prevent LEOs from thinking that they have a right to demand cooperation beyond the requirements of the law.

I’m thinking a lot of this cop’s talk was just that: talk. When you’ve got a gun and a badge, your threats can have a much bigger effect, and sadistic f**kers like this guy get off on that.
MadisonConservative

Naw – this cop is clearly a near-psychotic out & out total nutburger. Sadism and insanity are not mutually exclusive attributes. Here ya got both, for example.

I have a problem with an American citizen being detained and touched by an agent of the government despite the fact that the citizen’s conduct is unambiguously legal. Obviously, I understad there is a difference between the two videos. That just means I’m madder about one than the other; I don’ think either is ok.

In all fairness to crazy shick, it is quite possible to have a run in with an insane police officer that convinces you that he will cause you some permanent harm unless you surrender your rights. In this situation, compliance might save your life.

On the contrary. Often, if the citizen wasn’t completely in the right, there would be a pile-on from plenty of commenters. Lots of pro-police authority lovers talking about how bad cops have it and how if they have to take their aggression out on “this idiot, so be it”.

MadisonConservative on July 21, 2011 at 12:17 PM

I am saying that both camps are represented here. And you are usually in the vanguard of the anti-cop libertarian view, but I don’t think you are alone in that view here.

In all fairness to crazy shick, it is quite possible to have a run in with an insane police officer that convinces you that he will cause you some permanent harm unless you surrender your rights. In this situation, compliance might save your life.

blink on July 21, 2011 at 3:37 PM

Don’t get me wrong. I think there are times when a person must take a situation into their own hands to save their own or others lives.

My focus was on the good cop/bad copy meme. I believe that most cops will do the right thing BUT I don’t trust them either. ALL cops believe that they are doing the right thing. That is the problem. In their own minds they are a law unto themselves. But aren’t we all? We all justify doing the wrong thing here and then. It doesn’t matter what law or code of professional ethics anyone is given when they justify themselves.

In all fairness to crazy shick, it is quite possible to have a run in with an insane police officer that convinces you that he will cause you some permanent harm unless you surrender your rights. In this situation, compliance might save your life.

blink on July 21, 2011 at 3:37 PM

You can’t really even be prepared to deal with those situations, either. The key is being able to react to normal encounters with a cool head, and the ability to discern between those encounters and crap like what was posted above. At that point, lick his shoes if you have to.

I applied for my cc the day after Obama was elected. It cost me $60 and I got the permit in January 2009. I didn’t have to list the weapon, qualify, or take a course. I have a Kimber .45, a S&W .45, and a Para Arms .45. Dang things are too heavy, so my next weapon will be a .380 with laser site. It fits right in my pocket and is quite effective at 15′.

And in justifying the particular intrusion the police officer must be able to point to specific and articulable facts which, taken together with rational inferences from those facts, reasonably warrant that intrusion.

Yeah – I’m a lead foot … and tell you what – if you drive through Livingston Parish you’d be too if you saw all the Playboy Bunnies that are working in the Sherrif’s Office where you have to pay the ticket. I’m not kidding you man – it’s like out of the Twilight Zone or something. There are, like 10 really beautiful (non-overweight) women in the state of Louisiana – and the Livingston Parish Sherrif employs every single one of them.

If you get a ticket … tell Robyn (with a “y” – that’s HOT) and Erica I said “Hi”

You can’t really even be prepared to deal with those situations, either. The key is being able to react to normal encounters with a cool head, and the ability to discern between those encounters and crap like what was posted above. At that point, lick his shoes if you have to.

What a great example of a police officer. All testosterone, no brains, and ready to open fire on anyone who looks at him sideways. He’s far more dangerous carrying a weapon than the citizen he pulled over.

Has the officer’s identity been made public? It ought to be. I’m sick of bureaucrats in ALL manner of government jobs having anonymity. Everyone paid from the public trough out to have their name and address publicly available.

Being one of the original hippies, I can’t tell how many times I had up-close-and personal-encounters with law officers who, for the most part, considered me to be a stinking, filthy, low-life, pot-smoking, waste of humanity.

They were wrong because I did bathe … now in then.

Point is is that I learned real quick that “Yes, sir” and “No, sir” we’re about the only words I should utter least I get thrown in jail – which I was a few times … just because.

I encountered some officers that clearly hated my very existence but never one as unhinged as this.

My nineteen year old son had Chicago cops put a gun in his car (he said it looked just like the guns in their holsters), threaten to take his iPod (must be nice to have money, they said. It was actually his girlfriend’s), take everything out of his car and throw it on the sidewalk (mostly athletic gear), kick around his soccer ball, have him spread eagle on the hoodm, then handcuffed in the back of a squad car, threaten to take him downtown to the Cook County jail, while they taunted him that he was in the wrong neighborhood.

They also kept asking if we or he had a FOID card, over and over again. He and we didn’t at the time but we all do now. Definitely, not all but a lot of cops are just as bad as the criminals.

Luckily, my son kept his cool and kept being polite and respectful no matter what they did or said, and after a few hours of this bizarre cat and mouse game, they let him go. His offense? He took the wrong exit ramp when going downtown to see his brother. He was “suspect” being white in a predominantly black neighborhood one block from the interstate. He got pulled over when he realized he made a mistake and tried to turn around and go back.

Actually, if crr6 is a student of this issue, then it would be interesting to read what she thinks. I’ve never discussed this with a shallow, ubber-liberal mind, so it would be interesting to see how she would twist the topic.

The local radio talk jock just talked again about the O’Keefe Medicaid sting in Ohio. John Kasich and the Ohio Congress have their work cut out to purge some of the dead weight public servants.

But of course the problem is pervasive thruout the US, not just Ohio. Wisconsin had their showdown with the unions, maybe these two issues will energize Ohio to have the showdown with public servants gone rogue.

To be fair, even the concealed-carry community in Ohio acknowledges that they have a problem getting licensees to properly inform police during stops

But that doesn’t apply here, now does it? Why even mention it? So because this man followed the rules, he gets threatened with MURDER just because some other citizens don’t follow the rules? Um, Ed, that makes no sense for you include in this post. The same could be said of citizens WITHOUT CCW: some are rude to officers, does that mean that if another is stopped and is polite that they deserve being abused simply because others don’t? You can really come off as mealy-mouthed and wishy-washy sometimes.